Social Responsibility Accounting in Times of Sustainability Crisis

Editorial:Maquetación 1 22/12/11 17:58 Página 187

SPECIAL ISSUE ON "SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACCOUNTING
AND REPORTING IN TIMES OF ‘SUSTAINABILITY
DOWNTURN/CRISIS’1
CONTABILIDAD E INFORMACIÓN SOBRE RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EN TIEMPOS DE
RECESIÓN/CRISIS DE SOSTENIBILIDAD

GUEST EDITORS: CARMEN CORREA-RUIZ AND JOSÉ M. MONEVA-ABADÍA

ABSTRACT

At a time when sustainability performance does not seem to match the expectations raised
by the sustainable development concept and, moreover, when the economic downturn and
crisis could be further eroding social and environmental concerns and values, the notion of
sustainability crisis provides an interesting starting point to reflect on the role of Social and
Environmental Accounting Research. Lack of humanity and values, short term economic
approach, institutional capture and misunderstanding and misuse of democracy, have all
served as catalysts of sustainability downturn and crisis. Thus, this editorial attempts to
advance public interest accounting by discussing the controversy around Sustainability and
Corporate Social Responsibility, expecting that the constitutive effects of researchers’ words
in this special issue and in future research agendas, will result in more transformative
power relations able to enhance a healthy democracy inspired by the capacity to do things
and to transform individuals’ attitudes and behaviours, as well as the institutional response
to the sustainability crisis.

(1)Acknowledgements: The guest editors of this special issue are particularly grateful for the trust and warm support
provided by Mª Antonia García-Benau and Carlos Larrinaga-González in this endeavor to advance social,
environmental and sustainability accounting research in Spain and enhance public interest accounting.

Fecha recibido: 24/10/2011
Revisado: 07/11/2011 Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review Vol. 14 - Nº Extraordinario
Aceptado: 25/11/2011 Pag. 187-211 ISSN: 1138-4891 Dep. Legal: MA-1436/97


188 C. Correa-Ruiz, J. M. Moneva-Abadía

RESUMEN

En una época en la que el desempeño en materia de sostenibilidad parece no cumplir las
expectativas creadas por el concepto de desarrollo sostenible y, en la que además, la
recesión y la crisis económica podría estar erosionando aún más los valores y
preocupaciones sociales y medioambientales, la noción de crisis de sostenibilidad
proporciona un interesante punto de partida para reflexionar sobre el papel de la
investigación en Contabilidad Social y Medioambiental. La falta de humanidad y la
ausencia de valores, el enfoque económico cortoplacista, la captura institucional y la
democracia mal entendida y su uso incorrecto, han servido como catalizadores de la crisis
y la recesión de la sostenibilidad. Así, el presente editorial pretende avanzar en la
contabilidad como interés general, debatiendo sobre la controversia existente alrededor de
la Sostenibilidad y la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, con la expectativa de que los
efectos constitutivos de las palabras de los investigadores, en este número especial y en las
agendas de investigación futuras, redunden en unas relaciones de poder más
transformadoras capaces de favorecer una democracia sana inspirada por la capacidad de
hacer cosas y cambiar los comportamientos y actitudes individuales así como la respuesta
institucional a la crisis de sostenibilidad.


Special issue on “social responsibility accounting and reporting in times of ..... 189

1 INTRODUCTION

Although the literature on sustainability/social responsibility/environmental accounting and
reporting (SEAR) has increased over the last decade (see Unerman, Bebbington and O’Dwyer,
2007; Owen, 2008, Gray, 2002; Gray, Dillard and Spence, 2009; Thompson, 2007, Parker,
2011) further research should still be conducted to gain a better understanding of current
practice and the discourses around the subject. Moreover, different ways of assisting all types
of organizations and institutions should also be explored, in order to develop more sustainable
and responsible patterns of behaviour. This research topic is even more urgent nowadays, at a
time when sustainability performance does not seem to match the expectations raised by the
sustainable development concept and, moreover, when the economic and financial crisis could
be further eroding social and environmental concerns and values and creating a sustainability
downturn. We agree with Melé, Argandoña and Sánchez-Runde (2011) that there is too much
literature advancing technical arguments for the world crisis, and that there are also
behavioural, moral and cultural reasons behind this adverse situation.

This special issue has been inspired by the interest in reflecting on and analysing the role of
“Social and environmental accounting and reporting in times of sustainability downturn”. When
talking about sustainability downturn, we have in mind the current economic (financial) crisis,
the slow down in the sustainability performance of organizations, and the institutional capture
of sustainability and sustainable development concepts (Larrinaga and Bebbington, 2001;
Moneva, Archel and Correa, 2006) which have led to set up business agendas and even national
(see Archel, Husillos and Spence, 2011) and European political agendas around the issue of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to the detriment of a real emphasis on sustainability
issues. While working on this special issue, we came to realise quite certainly, that the topic
we wanted to discuss is the sustainability crisis. Although “downturn” reflects the current slow-
down in sustainability performance, “crisis” is a more radical concept in several ways. First of
all, “crisis” entails the breaking/rupture of something, and sustainability crisis could better
explain some issues like the current shift to CSR. Moreover, “crisis” suggests that further
analysis and reflection are required and, consequently, sustainability crisis could provide an
interesting point of departure to reflect on the role of Social and Environmental Accounting
Research (SEAR). In addition, although “crisis” is often associated with economic recession,
it could be “a dangerous opportunity” (Xin Li, 2010), which indicates that a decisive change
is impending (Melé, Argandoña and Sánchez-Runde, 2011, p. 2). Thus, although entailing
some uncertainty, “crisis” suggests a crucial moment with important repercussions and with the
announcement of changes, the kind of changes that are needed to evolve into more sustainable
patterns of behaviour. De-growth has been pointed out as a response to the triple environmental,
social and economic crisis (Schneider, Kallis and Martinez-Alier, 2009) but also ‘being human’
with certain basic ethical values has been underlined as something absolutely necessary by the
United Nations (UN, 2009) in its Manifesto for a Global Economic Ethic (hereafter UN
Manifesto). In this vein, sustainability crisis is a concept that would better enhance a discussion



about the potential ways of modifying attitudes and behaviours and the role of SEAR in doing
so. In reflecting and discussing the notion of sustainability downturn and crisis, we consider it
essential for researchers to take a tough critical stance on understanding sustainability and
social responsibility in accounting, enhancing sustainability awareness and responsible
accounting education, and exploring mechanisms for improved accountability and transparency
within organizations and institutions, with a particular focus on the non-profit and public
sectors, as well financial markets. In this regard, the new proposal of integrated reporting is
introduced, as a reference for the discussion of the need to face up to economic and
sustainability crisis from an accounting perspective.

Indeed, we are appealing for researchers, especially accountancy scholars, to have an active
role in suggesting ways of moving towards more sustainable patterns of behaviour. Because we,
as researchers, have at least the responsibility to portray and disapprove of unsustainable
practices and make people aware that there are behavioural, moral and cultural reasons behind
the economic crisis and the sustainability downturn, which have led to emphasize a short-term
approach in almost all aspects of our existence -personal life, publications and performance in
academic life, short-term performance of organizations in general … Addressing the
abovementioned concerns, we can start walking this talk about sustainability crisis in our small
field of influence, exhibiting the very behaviour of committed researchers and educators
engaged in taking on our role in moving forward the current weak discourse on social
responsibility and sustainability accounting and reporting by infusing it with a more critical
zeal in order to raise society’s hopes of enjoying a better world (Gray, Dillard and Spence, 2009).

The present editorial tackles all these questions and attempts to link them with the papers
that shape this special issue. Thus, the remainder of this editorial is structured as follows.
The second section will discuss further the sustainability crisis and the need to change
attitudes by appealing to values and ‘being human’ in the accounting sphere. The third
section will deal with the debate on the binomial sustainability-CSR, exposing the threat of
capture and its implications for democratic society. The fourth section will underline the
need to enhance sustainability awareness and responsible accounting education. The fifth
section will briefly deal with the issue of exploring mechanisms for improved accountability
and transparency within organizations and institutions. Finally, the last two sections will
introduce the papers included in this special issue and conclude the paper suggesting
avenues for further research.

2 SUSTAINABILITY DOWNTURN/CRISIS? ATTITUDES, VALUES
AND BEING HUMAN

The economic crisis has brought about dramatic consequences in many countries. Apart
from the continuous downturns in stock markets, bankruptcies, insolvency problems, and
mass foreclosures (Melé, Argandoña and Sánchez-Runde, 2011), the economic crisis has led



to increases in unemployment and the informal economy, a slowdown of social welfare, a
lack of confidence and the enhancement of the ‘every man for himself’ culture. The only
positive side effect of this crisis may be that it has made visible that the prevailing system
of values has failed to lead society to evolve towards more sustainable patterns of behavior.
As a consequence, the need to survive has led individuals, businesses and other
organizations to prioritize needs and aims. Again, this has had not so positive effects in
terms of attributing importance to social responsibility and sustainability concerns, in
particular at corporate and institutional level.

As argued by Gray (2006) it may be that the ecological planetary crisis is unavoidable, but it
certainly deserves our attention and it deserves that attention soon. Furthermore, he remarks
that sustainability is a pressing and demanding issue which we, as a species, are failing to
address with sufficient diligence. Furthermore, Gray (2006) also encourages scholars to respond
to such concerns by formulating research questions more clearly motivated by issues that matter
–as a way to produce “cash value” in the pragmatist sense (p. 816). This call for attention to
issues that really matter must be necessarily linked to a concern about ethical behavior in
individuals and institutions of any kind and to concern about values.

The UN Manifesto (UN, 2009) provides a breeding ground for the discussion about Social
Responsibility Accounting and Reporting in times of ‘Sustainability downturn/crisis’
pointing to the issue of values as a critical edge to overcome crisis:

“For the globalization of economic activity to lead to universal and sustainable
prosperity, all those who either take part in or are affected by economic activities are
dependent on a values-based commercial exchange and cooperation. This is one of the
fundamental lessons of today’s worldwide crisis of the financial and product markets.
… A global economic ethic – a common fundamental vision of what is legitimate, just,
and fair– relies on moral principles and values that from time immemorial have been
shared by all cultures and have been supported by common practical experience. (p.2)”.

In summary, the UN Manifesto sets forth humanity as the fundamental principle - being
human must be the ethical yardstick for all economic action (p.3) - with non-violence and
respect for life, justice and solidarity, honesty and tolerance, mutual esteem and partnership
as basic values of a global economy. It certainly seems that these are very basic affairs but
it is also quite evident that these concerns have been overlooked.

3 SUSTAINABILITY AND CSR: THE THREAT OF INSTITUTIONAL CAPTURE
AND THE ROLE OF ACADEMICS

As widely stated in the literature, sustainable development and sustainability are highly
contested and elusive concepts with which to engage (Bebbington and Thomson, 1996;



Bebbington, 2001; Bebbington, Brown and Frame, 2007; Springett, 2003; Milne, Kearins
and Walton, 2006; Dixon and Fallon, 1989; Gladwin, Kenelly and Krause, 1995; Milne,
1996; Bebbington, 2009).

Livesey (2001) poses that business response to sustainability can be seen as an attempt to bring
up to date the discourse of development (growth) within the new discourse of sustainability.
Furthermore, this response has been argued as a business case for sustainability and many
contributions insist that business has embraced the sustainability agenda in a way that
reinforces business as usual (Laine, 2005; Milne, Kearins and Walton, 2006; Spence and Gray,
2008; Spence, 2009; Laine, 2010). Livesey and Kearins (2002) has also discussed how
sustainability reporting serves firms’ attempts to construct themselves as “making progress”
toward sustainable development, underlining the potential of the taken-for-granted transparency
to reconstitute “reality” related to sustainable development in manipulative ways. In a similar
manner, Tregidga and Milne (2006) have addressed the role of the corporate report in
constructing the corporate response to sustainable development and the legitimate organization
clarifying that however, through increasingly engaging with this discourse from an economic
position, it has been constrained to a perspective of ‘ecological modernization’ (Everett and
Neu, 2000). Moreover, they insist on the fact that there is something fundamentally
antidemocratic with such reporting, when used to strengthen and reinforce elitist notions of
expert control and management of the environment. In Livesey’s words (2002a, p. 340),
reinforcing a view of sustainable development as an outcome that “can and should be
determined and measured in scientific terms, rather than by ethical or political traditions”,
social reporting puts at risk those aspects of sustainable development that call for the
decentralization and democratization of decision making, and require continuing negotiation
specific to local contexts and situations as well.

Moreover, Milne, Kearins and Walton (2006) suggest that an important paradox in business
representations of sustainability is revealed by opening out the reductionist understanding
of the ‘sustainability as a journey’ metaphor. They highlight that by appealing to that
metaphor, business avoids specifying some future desirable states of affairs and,
consequently, moral and political debate is sacrificed to a continuing ideology of progress
which contributes to make orthodox a notion of corporate and business sustainability more
akin to weak rather than strong sustainability. In a similar vein, Springett (2003) remarks
that, business’s discourse engages only superficially with sustainable development.

In the discussion about discourse and business’s interpretation of sustainable development,
it cannot be denied that CSR has emerged as a more feasible, attainable and affordable
concept for business to address the sustainable development agenda. Indeed, many
organizations have used CSR to label their reports and the corresponding departments and
organizational structures, exhibiting them either in a more reactionary or reconcilable
fashion to the issue of sustainability and sustainable development. However this position has



been at no risk, and nowadays many companies have started to rename their reports and
departments using the term sustainability, as they have realized that the CSR label is mainly
linked to voluntary corporate social action and philanthropy.

But CSR is in no way a new concept. However, despite its long tradition in organizational
literature, in recent years we have attended a renaissance of CSR issues at corporate and
institutional level, and its current conceptualization has evolved into a more fashionable
device that threatens to prevent a more serious and relevant debate about sustainability.
This conceptualization has been also facilitated by European policy actions. A common
European understanding of CSR has emerged from the Green Paper on Corporate Social
Responsibility, which defines it as a concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business processes and in their interactions with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis (COM, 2001: 366). European Union has also considered
CSR as a potential instrument for the European Strategy for Sustainable Development and
to achieve the strategic goal of becoming by 2010 “the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable growth with more and better
jobs and greater social cohesion” (COM 2002: 347). However, the current economic crisis
has unveiled the inability of the current understanding of CSR to achieve such a strategic
goal. Indeed, the short term approach of CSR practices has proved to be ineffective to
respond to the call made by the European Commission (COM 2005: 658) in the revised
Sustainable Development Strategy “for the business leaders and other key stakeholders of
Europe to engage in urgent reflection with political leaders on the medium and long-term
policies needed for sustainability”.

Indeed, although CSR has been traditionally linked to some kind of commitment to
environmental and social concerns, it is also inextricably related to governance, innovation,
image, reputation and competitive advantage. This issue is evidenced in the new European
approach to CSR reporting called Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) information
which has emerged as a key issue at the plenary meeting of the European Multistakeholder
Forum on CSR (February 2009). The term ESG first appeared in the United Nations Principles
of Responsible Investment and it is also employed by major business consulting firms.
Consequently, the European Union is suggesting that the markets –specifically the socially
responsible investment sector (SRI)- would value companies more accurately if they consider
ESG information. Some preliminary results indicate increased (non-significant) CSR
performance –measured by ESG information or adoption of the principles of United Nations
Global Compact- during the financial crisis (Giannarakis and Theotokas, 2011).

More recently, in the centre of the financial crisis, the Europe 2020 Strategy adopted in
2010 by the European Commission made a commitment to “renew the EU strategy to
promote CSR as a key element in ensuring long term employee and consumer trust”, which
has given rise to the recently communication (COM 2011: 681). Hence, the Commission



puts forward a new definition of CSR as “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts
on society”. Although this document underlines interesting aspects like the need to better
clarify what is expected of enterprises and the need to give greater attention to human rights
(p. 5), it also places too much emphasis on maximising the creation of shared value for their
owners/shareholders and enhancing market reward for CSR.

With no intention of arguing the business case for CSR any further, what we have been trying to
explain above, and hereafter, is that CSR developments reflect a process of business and
institutional capture (see Larrinaga and Bebbington, 2001) of the critical concepts of sustainable
development, sustainability and social responsibility, and that most business reporting on
sustainability and much business representative activity around sustainability actually have
little, if anything, to do with sustainability (Gray, 2010; see also Beder, 1997; Gray 2006; Gray
& Milne, 2002; Milne, Kearins, & Walton, 2006; Milne, Tregigda, & Walton, 2003).

The dominance of the social paradigm with a clear emphasis on economic growth has been
remarked by Tregidga and Milne (2006) and it is also evident in current regulations. Article
number 1 of the current Spanish Sustainable Economy Act2 could serve as an example:

“This act seeks to bring the necessary structural reforms into the legal system to foster
sustainable economic development”.

This emphasis on economic growth is recurrent throughout the entire regulation. In
particular, Article 2 notes that Sustainable Economy is defined in the context of the Act as
a growth pattern able to reconcile economic, social and environmental development in a
productive and competitive economy fostering employment quality, equal opportunities and
social cohesion, and guaranteeing environmental protection and a rational use of natural
resources so that the needs of current generations can be met without threatening the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.

Some additional examples of this kind of reductionism and institutional capture have been
provided in the literature in regard to GRI (Moneva, Archel and Correa, 2006; Levy,
Szejnwald and Jong, 2010). The contribution by Moneva, Archel and Correa (2006) is an
instance of attempting to make visible GRI institutional capture by depicting the
camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. The contribution by Levy, Szejnwald and Jong
(2010) represents a more subtle way of portraying institutional capture appealing to the
contested politics of corporate governance in GRI and the relative weakness of societal
groups -such as NGOs- of which institutional entrepreneurship is inherently constrained by
the structural power of wider institutions. In a similar vein, Archel, Husillos and Spence
(2011) analyse recent government-led CSR initiatives in Spain and the institutionalization

(2) Ley 2/2011, de 4 de marzo, de Economía Sostenible.



of CSR discourse concluding that stakeholder consultation processes legitimize dominant
discourses on CSR by giving the impression of a democratic dialogue. They argue that
business capture of CSR is ingrained into institutional processes and call into question the
potential for civil society actors to move CSR in a more challenging direction. Similarly,
Livesey (2002a, p. 343) poses that if corporate social reporting against a triple bottom line
is to become an institutionalized practice of sustainable development, businesses and their
consultants should not be the only stakeholders who participate in shaping it and calls for
more participatory and democratic practice.

An evolution of this practice is the so called “integrated reporting”, an instrument that
“provides a clear and concise representation of how an organization demonstrates
stewardship and how it creates and sustains value” (IIRC, 2011).

Short term economic approach, reputation risk management, institutional capture and
misunderstanding and misuse of democracy, have all served as catalysts of the sustainability
downturn.

In this regard we call for a deep change in the company-stakeholders (all agents) dialogue.
Fullerton and Chang (2010) give us an example of a CEO letter to the board of Directors
introducing this approach:

“In last year’s annual report, my letter to ‘shareholders’ focused on our corporation’
strategies to preserve our bottom line against the backdrop of a severe economic downturn.
This year’s letter will be addressed to ‘stakeholders’ and will focus on our strategies to
reverse a sustainability crisis that has far more profound implications for our survival
than the current recession”.

Alternative insights have also been provided to cope with the economic crisis. Thus, the idea
of de-growth is emerging as a response to the triple environmental, social and economic
crisis (Schneider, Kallis and Martinez-Alier, 2009). These authors define sustainable de-
growth as an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human
well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short
and long term (p. 511). Although they identify different movements and intellectual sources
of de-growth3, we consider it particularly interesting to reflect on the one related to the quest

(3)Schneider, Kallis and Martinez-Alier (2009) underline five intellectual forces of de-growth (p. 511). The first of
them is culturalist. It comes from anthropologists criticizing the idea that southern countries need to follow the
development model of the US and Europe, the second source of de-growth is the quest for democracy, the aspiration to
determine our economic and social system, breaking the close link among the political system, the technological
system, the education and information system, and short-term economic interests. The third source is ecology,
defending ecosystems and showing respect for living beings in all of their dimensions. The fourth source is linked to
what some authors call ‘‘the meaning of life’’ and movements around it emphasizing spirituality, non-violence, art or
voluntary simplicity. The last source can be called bio-economics or ecological economics.



for democracy, the aspiration to determine our economic and social system, breaking the
close link among the political system, the technological system, the education and
information system, and short-term economic interests (p. 511).

Democracy has been extensively demanded in social and environmental accounting
literature. But these concerns goes back a long way. Lehman (1999) appeals to the need to
understand democracy arguing that:

“The most urgent questions facing modern democracies are not pluralism, but what
democracy and community mean when public intervention and decision-making are made
by corporations that have no commitment to local economies and communities (p. 219)”.

But democracy is still a challenge for society nowadays. And the current understanding of
democracy has too much to do with the issue of (un)sustainability and the sustainability
crisis. Matters like social equality, respect for the individual and freedom, which are central
issues for democracy, are currently not so evident. Instead, we have a situation where
prevailing stakeholder dialogue mechanisms in institutions impinge on democracy,
privileging some constituencies. These mechanisms allow the voices to be heard but current
power relations deadlock the influence of non-privileged constituencies. If there is a way
to unlock this process, we, as researchers, have a responsibility to find it. As Livesey (2002a,
p. 343) states words have effects and consequently researchers’ words also have constitutive
effects. And to cause an effect, what we need is academics eager to make aware society of
the urgent need to change attitudes and patterns of behaviour in each sphere of influence,
to criticize and refuse irresponsible practices, to claim for responsibility and ethics, to foster
education in sustainability issues and critical thinking, to address and extend concerns of
accountability and sustainability to wider sectors of society –universities, public
institutions, non- profit and non-governmental organizations, and, more generally, social
economy - and to observe and analyze current practices and institutional developments in
an attempt to identify both, their encouraging aspects and the barriers they encompass. As
Gray (2010) argues, our accounts of planetary (un)sustainability are persuasive and must be
responded to.

4 ENHANCING SUSTAINABILITY AWARENESS AND RESPONSIBLE
ACCOUNTING EDUCATION

The accounting research community has made great efforts to enhance sustainability awareness.
We have witnessed the building of a vibrant community of Social and Environmental
Accounting scholars increasingly appearing in leading edge journals which has benefited from
the social infrastructure of CSEAR worldwide (Owen, 2008; Owen, 2007; Mathews, 1997; Gray,
Dillard and Spence, 2009, Parker, 2011). Particularly, the development of SEAR in Spain and



the mobilisation of the Spanish community has been emphasized by Parker (2011) and
explained by Correa (2011). Some critical voices have raised concerns about the way it has
been done and the costs of this mobilization (Everett and Neu, 2000; Gray, 2002; Gray, Dillard
and Spence, 2009; Correa and Laine, 2010; Correa, 2011).

Recognizing that a “business as usual” approach to economic activity is unsustainable in
our finite biosphere, the Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens - Federation of
European Accountants (FEE) has issued a series of policy statements on core issues in
relation to sustainability and the accountancy profession. In these policy statements FEE
has claimed that the accounting profession needs to recognize the wider impact of
sustainability which touches on many areas of its competence either insisting on equipping
accountants for a sustainable future (FEE, 2010a), underlining that accountants must
encourage small enterprises to embed sustainable business practices (FEE, 2010b), or
highlighting that the accounting profession can help public sector organizations to achieve
greater sustainability in their activities and actions (FEE, 2010c) .

Gray and Collison (2002) argue that the only way in which accounting can remain a
profession, serve the public interest and respond to the exigencies of sustainability is
through a major revision of accounting degrees. As can be observed, this matter has yet to
be resolved.

Schools and higher education institutions are involved in the education of current and future
managers, entrepreneurs and accountants and there must be a commitment to infuse
students with values related to ethics, sustainability and social responsibility to enhance
their awareness and engagement with these issues, especially in the context of a globalised
world and crisis. Dealing with this challenge, Owen (2007, p. 72) underlines that:

“the class-room offers the most direct opportunity of influencing the next generation of
accountants and its importance cannot be under-estimated, particularly in view of
accusations that modern day business education, in its elevation of the principles of
property rights and narrow self-interest above broader values of community and ethics,
is complicit in creating a climate that breeds Enrons and WorldComs.”

In a similar vein, considering currents developments in globalisation and the systemic crises
of which accounting is a part, Boyce (2008) calls for University accounting educators to
address the need to balance humanistic/formative and vocational aspects of education. He
argues that accounting and business educators have a special responsibility to examine
ethics in the broader context of globalisation.

As a further matter, Thompson and Bebbington (2004) address the issue of the hidden
curriculum, arguing that challenging managerial capture does not lie solely in changes to



the ‘visible curriculum’, but that it is possible to subvert managerialism within an apparently
‘managerialist’ curriculum by focusing on designing a more critical educational process (p.
624). In summary, they suggest that it does not matter what you teach, but how you teach
and that non-managerialist’ material delivered in a conventional fashion can become just
as oppressive and alienating as ‘trite managerialism’.

In practice, few University programmes include sustainability/CSR in their different
approaches –e.g. Holdsworth et al. (2008) on Australian Universities. But a lot of
Universities are signatories to the different declarations or commitments on these issues.

In regard to the Spanish case, recent interest in this issue in higher education has been reflected
in the Strategy University 2015 proposed by the Spanish Government. The aim of this project
is to introduce sustainability and CSR at all University levels (teaching, research and
management) and it states the need to increase the curricula, in all disciplines, on social and
cultural development, as well as on human and civic values (Martin and Moneva, 2011).

Some exploratory studies have been conducted to address the issue of CSR/sustainability in
Higher education .The results, based on the new context introduced by the Bologna declaration,
show that CSR and sustainability issues still have only a limited presence in academic curricula
but are more prominent in postgraduate education (Larran, López and Ortiz, 2011). Although
the different studies do not include all programs and degrees, what it is remarkable is that they
highlight the need to rethink and revise the whole educational system.

One institutional problem is the sustainability behaviour of University/school policy.
Teaching about this subject in a non-sustainable organization could be ineffective and
requires a deep change in these institutions (Martin and Moneva, 2011).

Behind all these arguments there is always the issue of how best to promote the changes that
are needed for sustainability to be an integral element of education and practice. Whether
change is best achieved through regulation, or whether it is best to seek to change attitudes
and avoid the need for enforcement is an open question (Broadbent, Laughlin and Alwani-
Starra, 2010)

The prominent philosopher Ortega-Gasset (1930) considers that a relevant characteristic of
a democratic University is the “universalization” of education and research in society.
Chomsky (2003, p. 278) has underlined that the major contribution that a University can
make to a free society is by preserving its independence as an institution committed to the
free exchange of ideas, to critical analysis, to experimentation, to exploration of a wide
range of ideas and values, to the study of the consequences in terms of values that are
themselves subject to careful scrutiny. Grounded in Chomsky’s thinking, Rabasso and
Rabasso (2010) appeal to critical thinking business education raising some questions about



how to improve the responsible perception and understanding of global environments and
how to rethink education in a competitive profit-oriented business community. They
underline that democracy is a key concept that has not yet been fully understood in our
business educational institutions as well as in many of our organizations, especially in the
marketing and finance departments (p. 71).

Consequently, this Special Issue introduces this issue as a potential relevant research topic
to be considered. Luckily, there is a paper that deals with the role of sustainability education
for accountants.

5 EXPLORING MECHANISMS FOR IMPROVED ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY

The quest for transparency and accountability as well as the understanding of accountability
and the way in which it operates in different sectors and institutions, has been a steady and
recurrent demand in social and environmental accounting research (Gray, Owen and
Maunders, 1988; Gray, 1992; Gray, Owen and Adams, 1996, Gray et al., 1997; Bebbington,
Gray and Owen, 1999, Collison, 2003). Thus, there is a wide range of literature considering
different accountability issues that partially fulfils this demand. Nevertheless, it is necessary
to deal with new matters or to explore different aspects of traditional issues (Gray, Dillard
and Spence, 2009; Owen, 2007; Parker, 2011). In the call for papers for this present Special
Issue we introduced some proposals on these lines, including the following three: Non-profit
and public sector accountability; responsible markets and finance and, finally, integrated
reporting.

Although Parker (2011) argues that social and environmental accounting research has
expanded into public/government, non-profit and NGO sectors we consider that these
research fields are still underexplored areas in Spain. NGOs accountability has been a
specific focus of concern in the social and environmental accounting literature (Gray, 1983;
O’Dwyer, Unerman and Bradley, 2005; Gray, Bebbington and Collison, 2006; O’Dwyer and
Unerman, 2007; Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2010). With regard to NGOs and recognizing the
vital role they play in alleviating the current and future suffering of the poorest people in
the world, Unerman and O´Dwyer (2010) convincingly argue that the rights-based approach
to development has an increasing role to play in improving the effectiveness of NGO welfare
aid delivery, and that downward accountability4 mechanisms have a key role in making the
rights-based approach more effective (p. 485). Furthermore, Gray, Bebbington and Collison
(2006) argue for a balance between transparency and accountability explaining that NGOs

(4)Downward accountability recognizes that NGOs can and should be accountable not just to those who fund them, but
also to their beneficiaries (Unerman and o’Dwyer, 2010)



are actively accountable through shared values, understandings and knowledge to the staff
who work for them, to the other NGOs with whom they interact, to the communities in which
they are embedded and to the professional knowledge base in which they operate and
through which they share and cooperate (p.334).

Linking with non-profit sector there is a need to analyze other corporate forms like
cooperative enterprises or foundations. In Spain, the cooperative sector (and social economy)
is especially important for employment –nearly one million jobs5. Recent studies show that
traditional CSR and reporting is not an adequate accountability mechanism for co-operative
enterprises (Mayo, 2011).

It is also necessary to call for explorations of mechanisms for improved accountability and
transparency in the public realm. As pressures for austerity and reform in public services
have followed the recent global financial and economic crises, a research agenda focused
on promoting the value of ‘alternative’ social, environmental and sustainability accounting
and accountabilities has been suggested (Guthrie, Ball and Farneti, 2010, p. 454). There is
an interesting landscape to be explored in Spain (Correa, 2011), where the current
Sustainable Economy Act has introduced reforms to address public sector sustainability
which are particularly oriented to sustainable budgeting, cooperation among civil services
organizations, an austerity plan for the central government and sustainable management for
state-owned companies.

In Spain, there are few contributions addressing social responsibility and sustainability
reporting issues in the public realm. Navarro, Alcaraz and Ortiz (2010) look at CSR
disclosure practices in local governments, concluding that the major shortcomings in CSR
disclosure are related to environmental information, while social information is the most
published. Moreover, literature has provided insights into other relevant public sector issues
which transcend accountability. In this vein, Ball and Craig (2010) have addressed social
and environmental accounting issues in two local governments in an attempt to theorise
about organizational transformation.

The second matter in the quest for transparency and accountability is focused on the
financial markets. They are usually considered as a powerful driver for companies and,
thus, for sustainability performance (UNEP Finance Initiative, 2004). Nevertheless, they
have been linked with widespread environmental degradation and the presence of social
injustice worldwide (Murray et al., 2006). In this context, sustainability indexes such as
Dow Jones Sustainability World Indexes (DJSI), FTSE4GOOD, KLD, and ratings like SIRI
Group scoring and the Council on Economic Priorities (CEP), have developed new
mechanisms for sustainable oriented investors, especially for institutional investors (pension

(5) http://www.socialeconomy.eu.org



and mutual funds) and a new reference for these markets. There is a shortage of papers on
this issue in Spain and they are mainly focused on traditional analysis of the relationship
between corporate social and financial performance, that try to show the benefits of “being
good” (Ortas and Moneva, 2011). Thus, research on the new context after the financial crisis
is needed to check if the financial crisis has affected the sustainability downturn.

Finally, we consider a third, recently emerged mechanism of transparency and
accountability, that is, integrated reporting. Integrated sustainability indicators have been
a marginal matter for the mainstream standards and guidelines for sustainability/CSR
reporting, given that there is limited interest from reporters and institutions. The GRI is an
example of this behaviour, which ignores such indicators in the G3 Guidelines (Azcárate,
Carrasco and Fernández-Chulián, 2011).

The financial crisis has also raised fundamental questions about the functioning of the
capital markets and the extent to which existing corporate reporting disclosures highlight
systemic risks and the true cost of doing business in today’s world (IIRC, 2011). At present,
organizations have to find the right balance between the short-term expectations of
customers and investors and the actions needed to assure long-term continuity and success
without the full information needed to make these judgments. The Prince’s Accounting for
Sustainability Project (A4S) began this way with the aim of providing answers to the
pressures of the institutional context. Recently, the International Integrated Reporting
Committee (IIRC) published for public discussion the first report entitled Towards integrated
reporting. Communicating Value in the 21st Century. This new approach raises a lot of
questions to develop. We underline the founder of GRI Massie’s (2010, p. 2) question: “is
integrated reporting an extended version of traditional financial accounting, or is its focus
firm accountability in which the corporation is seen as a holistic mechanism for creating
human prosperity?”

6 CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS IN THIS SPECIAL ISSUE ON “SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING IN TIMES OF
‘SUSTAINABILITY DOWNTURN/CRISIS’”

In this section we introduce the papers included in this special issue. The four selected
contributions provide interesting insights into the issue of “sustainability downturn and
crisis” that we have introduced.

Azcárate, Carrasco and Fernández-Chulián (2011) critically analyse the content of GRI
guidelines, and more specifically integrated indicators, reaching the conclusion that they
are serving the purposes of a weak sustainability approach. Anchored in previous and
continuous well-known discussions in the literature about the meaning and controversy of



sustainability and sustainable development (Bebbington and Thomson, 1996; Owen, Gray
and Bebbington, 1997; Bebbington and Gray, 2001; Gray and Milne, 2004, Laine, 2005;
Moneva, Archel and Correa, 2006; Milne, Tregidga and Walton, 2009 and Gray, 2010) this
paper addresses the issue of the sustainability crisis by enlightening and providing further
evidence of a weak sustainability orientation, and demanding a more responsible and
coherent attitude, calling either for a reflection and subsequent redefinition of GRI approach
to move towards a strong sustainability orientation or to change its current denomination –as
guidelines for Sustainability reporting- to guidelines for TBL reporting. Despite providing
an interesting account of the complexity and potential relevance of sustainability indicators
as well as of the weak sustainability discourse in the highly institutionalised environment
of GRI, the paper also highlights the need to change attitudes and behaviours arguing that
GRI institution must walk the talk by internalising and externalising its own social
responsibility. In addition, the paper serves a pedagogical function in the use of content
analysis for sustainability reporting research.

Fernández-Chulián (2011) provides an account of the potential benefits of addressing
sustainability issues within business/management studies curricula. Through discussion of the
teaching methodology and the opinions of students on a social and environmental accounting
course for students in the fourth year of a business studies degree at a Spanish university, the
author provides challenging insights into the role of accounting education for sustainability.
Moreover, it allows us to reflect on education as a critical issue to foster change in students’
attitudes and behaviour, infusing them with certain values that could impinge on their personal
and professional realms. This challenge will progressively aid in counteracting the adverse,
and, even pessimistic behavioural, moral and cultural reasons behind the crisis.

Horrach and Socias-Salvà (2011) address the third sector economy analysing voluntary
social reporting disclosures of social enterprises in Balearic Islands, grounded in a
stakeholder theory approach, and more specifically, on Ullmann’s contribution (1985) in an
attempt to clarify their strategic framework and the reasons for disclosing sustainability
information. The authors confirm that organizations with higher levels of disclosure are big
organizations with an active strategy toward their stakeholders although size cannot be
specifically considered as a clear determinant either of the level of disclosures or of the
active strategic viewpoint towards stakeholders. Furthermore, they argue that in small
organizations dependence on the Government is the clearest determinant of a lukewarm
social disclosure and that, in any case, transparency serves a utilitarian and accountability
function in order to obtain approval of the dominant stakeholder group.

Although their study is rather exploratory, it represents an initial helpful attempt to reflect
on the nuances of the significance of social responsibility and sustainability in third sector
organizations and the complexity of the third sector opening up further research avenues in
this unexplored field in Spanish Social and Environmental Accounting literature.



Analysing the systematic risk achieved by Spanish companies operating in the conventional
energy sector -petrol, electricity and gas - and in the renewable energy sector from 2007 to
2010, Ortas and Moseñe (2011) show that companies operating with renewable energies obtain
lower levels of systematic risk than those operating within the conventional energy business
sector. The authors highlight that business initiatives with higher levels of social and
environmental performance conferred more calm/trust upon stakeholders. And, in economic
recession periods, companies operating in the renewable energy industry are positively valued
by the different stakeholders, in particular by the investor stakeholder group, who provide more
support to such initiatives. Moreover, Ortas and Moseñe (2011) suggest that, in times of crisis
and economic recession like the present, a transition/shift towards business initiatives based
on renewable energy could also provide opportunities for both, facilitating a quicker way out
of the crisis, as well as fostering better environmental performance in terms of environmental
preservation. Although this contribution argues a business case for sustainability in the
renewable energy industry –which has been such a controversial issue within social and
environmental accounting literature-, it also underlines the instrumental role of ‘investment in
sustainability’ in generating long-term employment, and consequently coping with one of the
most prominent concerns existing nowadays in Spain.

7 CONCLUSIONS

Debate over the sustainability crisis has provided an interesting point of departure to reflect
on the role of Social and Environmental Accounting Research in times of sustainability
downturn, enhancing discussion about potential ways of changing attitudes and behaviours
and the role of social and environmental accounting research in doing so.

Sustainability downturn and crisis has unveiled an endangered democracy, especially in
corporation dialogue, and challenges academics to move forward the current weak discourse
on social responsibility and sustainability appealing to essential aspects of democracy like
the respect for the individual and freedom. The catalysts of sustainability downturn -short
term economic approach, institutional capture and misunderstanding and misuse of
democracy- can be overcome by placing emphasis on humanity and on very essential values
like respect, honesty, tolerance, mutual esteem, justice, and solidarity, among others.

Accounting can serve the public interest and respond to the exigencies of this debate on
sustainability downturn and crisis by making society aware of the urgent need to change
attitudes and patterns of behaviour, analysing current practices and institutional
developments and exhibiting irresponsible practices, demanding responsibility and ethics,
fostering education in sustainability issues and stimulating critical thinking, and extending
concerns of accountability and sustainability to wider sectors of society such as universities,
public institutions, non-governmental organizations and fair trade organizations. The papers



included in this special issue advance this agenda and also provide interesting insights for
further research. However, there is still a long way to go and it has to be done by walking,
talking and being human. In this way, we would also like to emphasize the need to place
Society at the core of the discussions and to call for ‘being human’ in all realms of our life
as a critical approach to coping with Sustainability downturn and crisis. Consequently, we
expect that the constitutive effects of researchers’ words and research agendas will result
in more transformative power relations able to enhance a healthy democracy inspired by the
capacity to do things and to transform individuals’ attitudes and behaviours as well as
institutional response to the sustainability crisis.



REFERENCES
Archel, P., Husillos, J. & Spence, C. (2011). The institutionalization of unaccountability:
loading the dice of Corporate Social Responsibility Discourse. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, July 2011. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2011.06.003
Azcárate, F., Carrasco, F. & Fernández-Chulián (2011). The role of integrated indicators in
exhibiting business contribution to sustainable development: a survey of sustainability
reporting initiatives. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review,
Ball, A., & Bebbington, J., (2008), “Accounting and Reporting for Sustainable Development
in Public Service Organisations: issues and emerging directions”, Public Money and
Management, 28(6), 323-325.
Bebbington, J. (2001) Sustainable development: a review of the international development,
business and accounting literature, Accounting Forum, 25(2), 128–157.
Bebbington, J. & Gray, R. H. (2001). An account of sustainability: Failure, success and a
reconceptualization. Critical perspectives on accounting, 12, 557-587.
Bebbington, J. & Thomson, I. (1996). Business Conceptions of sustainability and the
implications for accountancy. ACCA Research Report 48. London: Certified Accountants
Publication Ltd.
Bebbington, J., (2009), “Measuring sustainable development performance: possibilities and
issues”, Accounting Forum, 33(3), 189-193.
Bebbington, K.J., Gray, R.H. & Owen, D.L. (1999), “Seeing the wood for the trees: taking
the pulse of social and environmental accounting”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, 47-51.
Beder, S. (1997). Global spin: The corporate assault on environmentalism. London: Green
Books.
Boyce, G. (2008). The social relevance of ethics education in a global(ising) era: From
individual dilemmas to systemic crises. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
19, 255-290.
Broadbent, Laughlin, R. & Alwani-Starr, G: (2010). ‘Steering for Sustainability:
Higher Education in England’, Public Management Review, 12 (4) 461-463
doi:10.1080/14719037.2010.496257
Capron, M. & Gray, R. H. (2000) Experimenting with Assessing Corporate Social
Responsibility in France: An Exploratory Note on an Initiative by Social Economy Firms,
European Accounting Review. 9(1), 99–109.
Chomsky, N. (2003). The responsibility of a university community. In Otero, J.P. (Ed.),
Chomsky on Democracy and Education, Routledge Falmer, New York, NY, 276-83.
Collison, D. (2003). Corporate propaganda: Its implications for accounting and accountability”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 2003, 16(5), 853-886.
Commission Communication 2005 “On the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy
- A platform for action” COM(2005) 658 final.
Commission Communication 2011 “ A renewed EU strategy 2011-2014 for Corporate Social
Responsibility “ COM(2011) 681 final.



Commission Green Paper 2001 “Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social
Responsibility”, COM(2001)366 Final.
Communication from the Commission 2002 “Corporate Social Responsibility: A business
contribution to Sustainable Development”, COM(2002)347 Final.
Correa (2011). Unveiling Social and Environmental Accounting Research in Spain: A
Narrative of the Mobilization of the Spanish Academic Community. Social and
Environmental Accountability Journal, 31( 1), 49–62.
Correa, C. & Laine, M. (2010) Struggling against like-minded conformity to enliven SEAR:
a call for passion, diversity and engagement, paper presented to the 22nd CSEAR
Summer School, St. Andrews, Scotland.
David L. Levy, D.L., Szejnwald, H. & de Jong, M. (2010). The Contested Politics of
Corporate Governance. The Case of the Global Reporting Initiative. Business & Society,
49(1), 88-115.
Dey, C. (2007a), “Social accounting at Traidcraft plc: a struggle for the meaning of fair
trade”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 423-45.
Dixon. J. A. & Fallon. L. A. (1989) ‘The Concept of Sustainability: Origins, Extensions, and
Usefulness for Policy’, Society and Natural Resources 2, 73–84.
Eccles, R., Cheng, B. & Saltzman, D. (2010) (eds), The landscape of integrated reporting.
Reflections and next steps, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard Business School.
Everett, J. & Neu, D. (2000) ‘Ecological Modernization and the Limits of Environmental
Accounting?’ Accounting Forum 24(1), 5–29.
FEE (2010a). Equipping accountants for a sustainable future. FEE Policy Statements,
Sustainability. Fédération des Experts comptables Européens - Federation of European
Accountants.
FEE (2010b). Small and sustainable: opportunities for SMEs. FEE Policy Statements,
Sustainability. Fédération des Experts comptables Européens - Federation of European
Accountants.
FEE (2010c). Accountants driving sustainable changes in the public sector. FEE Policy
Statements, Sustainability. Fédération des Experts comptables Européens - Federation
of European Accountants.
Fernández-Chulián (2011). Constructing new accountants: the role of sustainability
education. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review,
Fullerton, J. & Chang, S. A. (2010), A CEO’s Letter to Her Board of Directors. In The
landscape of integrated reporting. Reflections and next steps, 9-12, Cambridge (Mass.):
Harvard Business School.
Giannarakis, G. & Theotokas, I. (2011). The Effect of Financial Crisis in Corporate Social
Performance, International Journal of Marketing Studies, 3 (1), 2-10.
Gladwin, T. N. Kennelly, J. J. & Krause, T. (1995) ‘Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable
Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research’, Academy of
Management Review 20(4), 874–907.



Gray R. & Collison D. (2002). Can’t see the wood for the trees, can’t see the trees for the
numbers? Accounting education, sustainability and the public interest. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting,,12(5/6), 797–836.
Gray, R. H. (2002). The social accounting project and Accounting, Organizations and
Society: Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over
critique. Accounting Organizations and Society, 27(7), 687–708.
Gray, R. H. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organizational
value creation? Whose value? Whose creation? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 19(6), 793–819.
Gray, R. H. & Bebbington, J. (2000). Environmental accounting, managerialism and
sustainability: Is the planet safe in the hands of business and accounting? Advances in
Environmental Accounting & Management, 1, 1–44.
Gray, R. H. & Guthrie, J. eds. (2007) Social Accounting, Mega Accounting and Beyond: A
Festschrift in Honour of M. R. Mathews, St Andrews: CSEAR Publishing.
Gray, R. H., & Milne, M. (2002). Sustainability reporting: Who’s kidding whom? Chartered
Accountants Journal of New Zealand, 81(6), 66–70.
Gray, R. H., Dillard, J. & Spence, C. (2009) Social accounting research as if the world
matters: an essay in Postalgia and a new absurdism, Public Management Review, 11(5),
545–573.
Gray, R., Bebbington, J., & Collison, D. J. (2006). NGOs, Civil Society and Accountability:
Making the people accountable to capital. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 19(3), 319–348.
Gray, R..H. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…
and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 47-62.
Gray, R.H. (1983), “Accountability, financial reporting and the not-for-profit sector”, British
Accounting Review, 15(1), 3-23.
Gray, R.H. (1992), “Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of
gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability”, Accounting
Organisations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5, 399-426.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, J. & Colllison, D. (2006). NGOs, civil society and accountability:
making the people accountable to capital. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 19(3), 319 – 348.
Gray, R.H., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R. & Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the praxis of
social accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(3), 325-64.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. & Adams, C. (1996), Accounting and Accountability: Changes and
Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Prentice Hall, London.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. & Maunders, K.T. (1987), Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting
and Accountability, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.



Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. & Maunders, K.T. (1988). Corporate social reporting: emerging
trends in accountability and the social contract, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 1(1), 6-20.
Guthrie, J., Ball, A. & Farneti, F. (2010). Advancing Sustainable Management of Public
and Not For Profit Organizations, Public Management Review, 12(4), 449–459.
Holdsworth, S, Wyborn C. Bekessy, S., & Thomas, I., (2008). Professional Development for
education for sustainability. How advanced are Australian universities?, International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9 ( 2), 131-146.
Horrach., P. & Socias-Salvà, A. (2011). The attitude of third sector enterprises towards the
disclosure of sustainability information: a stakeholder approach. Revista de
Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review,
International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) (2011). Towards integrated reporting.
Communicating Value in the 21st Century. www.theiirc.org.
Laine M. (2010). Towards sustaining status quo: Business talk of sustainability in Finnish
corporate disclosures 1987-2005. European Accounting Review, 19(2), 247-74.
Laine, M. (2005). Meanings of the term ´sustainable development` in Finnish corporate
disclosures. Accounting Forum, 29, 395-413.
Laine, M. (2009). Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes? A longitudinal
interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a leading Finnish chemical company.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(7), 1029–1054.
Larrán, M,, López, A., & Ortiz, D. (2010). Social responsibility in the programmes offered
at public universities in Spain. 33rd Annual Congress of the European Accounting
Association, 19-21 May 2010, Istanbul, Turkey
Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. & Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting change or institutional
appropriation? -A case study of the implementation of environmental accounting. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 12(3). 269–92.
Lehman, G. (1999). Disclosing new worlds: a role for social and environmental accounting
and auditing, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(3), 217-41.
Lehman, G. (2001). “Reclaiming the public sphere: problems and prospects for corporate
social and environmental accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
12(6), 713-33.
Ley 2/2011, de 4 de marzo, de Economía Sostenible.
Livesey, S. (2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar and
Nigeria. The Journal of Business Communication, 38(1), 58–91.
Livesey, S. (2002a). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen shell commits to
sustainable development. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(3), 313–349.
Livesey, S., & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? A study of
sustainability reports by the body shop and royal Dutch/shell. Organisation and
Environment, 15(3), 233–258.
Manifesto Global Economic Ethic. Consequences for Global Businesses. UN Headquarters,
New York, 6 October 2009.



Massie, R. K. (2010), Accounting and Accountability. Integrated Reporting and the Purpose
of the Firm, In The landscape of integrated reporting. Reflections and next steps, 2-8,
Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard Business School.
Mathews, M.R. (1997). Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research:
Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate?, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10
(4), 481 – 531.
Mayo, E. (2011). Co-operative performance, Sustainability Accounting, Management and
Policy Journal, 2 (1), 158 – 164.
Melé. D.; Argandoña, A. & Sanchez-Runde, C. (2011). Facing the Crisis: Toward a New
Humanistic Synthesis for Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 1–4.
Milne, M. J., Kearins, K. N. & Walton, S. (2006) Creating Adventures in Wonderland? The
Journey Metaphor and Environmental Sustainability, Organization, 13(6), 801–39.
Milne, M., Tregidga, H., & Walton, S. (2009). Words not action! The ideological role of
sustainable development reporting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
22(8), 1211-57.
Moneva, J.M., Archel, P. & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate
unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30, 121-137.
Marin, E., & Moneva, J.M. (2011). Universidad y desarrollo sostenible: Análisis de la
rendición de cuentas de las universidades del G9 desde un enfoque de responsabilidad
social, Working Paper 2011-1, Faculty of Economy and Business Administration,
University of Zaragoza.
Murray, A., Sinclair, D., Power, D., Gray, R. (2006). Do financial markets care about social
and environmental disclosure?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 19,
228-255.
Navarro, A.; Alcaraz, F.J. & Ortiz, D. (2010). The disclosure of corporate social
responsibility information in public Administrations: an empirical study in local
governments. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 13 (2), 285-314.
O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial
capture, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(4), 532-57.
O’Dwyer, B. (2007). ‘The Nature of NGO Accountability: Motives, Mechanisms and Practice’
in J. Unerman, J. Bebbington & B. O’Dwyer (eds) Sustainability Accounting and
Accountability. London: Routledge.
O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2007). From functional to social accountability: Transforming
the accountability relationship between funders and nongovernmental development
organisations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 446–471.
O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. & Bradley, J. (2005), “Perceptions and the emergence and future
development of corporate social disclosure in Ireland: engaging the voices of
non-governmental organisation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(1), 14-43.
O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. & Bradley, J. (2005). Perceptions on the emergence and future
development of corporate social disclosure in Ireland: Engaging the voices of non-
governmental organisations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 18(1), 1, 14-43.



Ober, J. (2008). The Original Meaning of “Democracy”: Capacity to Do Things, not Majority
Rule, Constellations, 15(1), 3-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8675.2008.00471.x
Ortas, E. & Moneva, J.M. (2011). Sustainability stock exchange indexes and investor
expectations: Multivariate evidence from DJSI-Stoxx. Spanish Journal of finance and
Accounting, XL (151), 395-416.
Ortas, E. & Moseñe, J.A. (2011). Sustainability in times of crisis, a bet on failure or a rising
value? Evidence from Spanish energy industry. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish
Accounting Review,
Ortega Gasset, J. (1930), Misión de la Universidad y otros ensayos sobre educación y
pedagogía, Alianza Editorial, Madrid (reprint 2002)
Owen, D. (2007). Social and environmental Accounting: Celebrating a silver jubilee of
engagement and community. In R. Gray and J. Guthrie (2007), Social Accounting Mega
Accounting and Beyon: A Festschrifti Honour of M.R. Mathews, CSEAR Publishing, St
Andrews, UK.
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current state of,
and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21, 240-267.
Owen, D., Gray, R. & Bebbington, J. (1997). Green accounting: cosmetic irrelevance of
radical agenda for change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting, 4(2), 175-98.
Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the
commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842–860.
Parker, L.D. (2011): Twenty-one years of social and environmental accountability research:
A coming of age. Accounting Forum 35, 1–10.
Rabasso, A. & Rabasso, J. (2010). A Chomskyan approach to responsible critical
management education. Journal of Global Responsibility, 1(1), 66-84.
Schneider, F., Kallis, G. & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic
degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 511–518.
Schneider, F.; Kallis, G. & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic
degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special
issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 511–518.
Spence, C. (2009). Social accounting’s emancipatory potential: A Gramscian critique.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(2), 205-227.
Spence, C. & Gray, R. (2008) Social and Environmental Reporting and the Business Case,
London: ACCA.
Springett, D. (2003). Business conceptions of sustainable development: a perception from
critical theory. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(2), 71–86.
Thomson, I. (2007). Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting. In J. Unerman, J.
Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability,
pp.19–37. London and New York: Routledge.



Thomson, I. & Bebbington, J. (2004). It doesn’t matter what you teach? Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, 15, 609–628.
Tregidga, H. & Milne, M. J. (2006) From sustainable management to sustainable
development: a longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter,
Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 219–241.
Unerman, J. (2007). Stakeholder engagement and dialogue. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington
& B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability (pp. 86–103). London
and New York: Routledge.
Unerman, J. & O’Dwyer, B.(2010). NGO accountability and sustainability issues in the
changing global environment. Public Management Review, 2(4), 475-486.
Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. & O’Dwyer, B. (2007), Sustainability accounting and
accountability. London and New York: Routledge.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (2004). The Materiality of Social,
Environmental and Corporate Governance Issues to Equity Pricing. UNEP Finance
Initiative, Genève.
Xin Li, S. (2010). Push, Nudge, or Take Control – An Integrated Approach to Integrated
Reporting, In Eccles, R., Cheng, B. & Saltzman, D. (eds), The landscape of integrated
reporting. Reflections and next steps (pp. 203-206), Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard Business
School.

Copyright of Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review is the property of Asociacion Espanola de
Profesores Universitarios de Contabilidad (ASEPUC) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

Social Responsibility Accounting in Times of Sustainability Crisis

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Social Responsibility Accounting in Times of Sustainability Crisis

Semelhante a Social Responsibility Accounting in Times of Sustainability Crisis (20)

Mais de armandogo92

Mais de armandogo92 (20)

Social Responsibility Accounting in Times of Sustainability Crisis